[MIKON8ERISBACK]

I think the death penalty (lethal injection only) should be introduced for those convicted of mass murder, acts of terrorism, or the murder of a person under the age of 18.

[.2D]

Personally, I'm for it. I think that if there's sufficient evidence against someone, and the crime is heinous enough, then I think that they should be held for up to say.. 2 years before being executed. I just feel that there are certain people out there that don't deserve to be kept alive. And despite the statistics, I think that crime would drop, even if only slightly, if the death penalty was re-introduced. Obviously, there are cases where someone will be overwhelmed by emotions and act without thinking, but I think that this should be taken into account. But if someone is found to clearly have acted consciously then the death penalty should be considered.

[OchyGTA]

QUOTE (.2D @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 23:40)

Personally, I'm for it. I think that if there's sufficient evidence against someone, and the crime is heinous enough, then I think that they should be held for up to say.. 2 years before being executed. I just feel that there are certain people out there that don't deserve to be kept alive. And despite the statistics, I think that crime would drop, even if only slightly, if the death penalty was re-introduced. Obviously, there are cases where someone will be overwhelmed by emotions and act without thinking, but I think that this should be taken into account. But if someone is found to clearly have acted consciously then the death penalty should be considered.

But statistics show the death penalty has no effect on violent crimes. Surely, if there is no evidence to support it's implementation then it should not be implemented. What's more, I hold the opinion that it's more of a punishment to spend your life incarcerated than to be given a way out by a "painless" death.

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (OchyGTA @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 23:56)

But statistics show the death penalty has no effect on violent crimes. [...] What's more, I hold the opinion that it's more of a punishment to spend your life incarcerated than to be given a way out by a "painless" death.

Not much of an argument. After all, this is to end the life of the 'Guilty' person. Criminals aren't bothered by laws or punishment because (s)he doesn't expect to be caught. Second, We want to end the useless expense ot keeping them. The prisons don't punish the criminal with free food and board. They punish the taxpayers.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 21:57)

QUOTE (OchyGTA @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 23:56) But statistics show the death penalty has no effect on violent crimes. [...] What's more, I hold the opinion that it's more of a punishment to spend your life incarcerated than to be given a way out by a "painless" death. Not much of an argument. After all, this is to end the life of the 'Guilty' person. Criminals aren't bothered by laws or punishment because (s)he doesn't expect to be caught. Second, We want to end the useless expense ot keeping them. The prisons don't punish the criminal with free food and board. They punish the taxpayers.

But what you're advocating is essentially a system of kangaroo courts that just declare you dead and you go off to the chamber in two weeks. Where the f*ck is the due process?

[Adept]

I understand that there are many practical measures to sort out with the legal, financial, and emotional/opinion when it comes to the death penalty and many have brought them up already and done so quite well. Advocating the eye-for-an-eye approach to punishment while at the same time telling everyone that they should not kill has always seemed to me as blatantly hypocritical. A do as I say not as I do form of authority doesn't seem like a very legitimate or effective way to conduct governance or leadership. I think Gandhi said it best, "An eye-for-an-eye leaves the whole world blind". Elegant.

[Tyler]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 19:57)

Second, We want to end the useless expense ot keeping them.

1) it's not useless, they are citizens of our country and need rehabilitation.

2) the expense is greater if you are putting them on death row. If you somehow kill them directly after the trial, due process and ethical treatment of our civilians goes out the window. Aren't you one of those civil liberty types, lil weasel?

QUOTE

The prisons don't punish the criminal with free food and board.

No, they punish the criminals by treating them inhumanly, glorifying prison rape, often times beating prisoners with physical abuse and in a lot of cases psychologically abusing the criminals. But all that's okay, it's the fact that Americans have to pay for Americans that annoys you. Not the lack of rehabilitation or the glorification of antagonistic prison mentalities.

[lil weasel]

I don't see it.
You will treat the prisoner (innocent maybe) with truly cruel conditions and say, "Yeah, we saved a life!"
Exposing them to STDs (a truly horrible death sentence.)
More expense for health care.
You will pay unnecessary taxes to support this cruel caging.
You put them in a Penitentiary (do you know what that means?)
You pay through the nose post trial, post judicial review, while their Lawyers make money in the Review process for year after year.
Now, Let’s go over some things:
• A person is arrested,
• the cops investigate,
• the District Attorney reviews the evidence,
• an arraignment hearing is held,
• The ‘suspect’ is bound over, Bailed maybe,
• Depositions are taken,
• A Pretrial Hearing is held,
• Motions are heard,
• Evidence is gathered,
• The Trial is held,
• The Judge decides what evidence/testimony will be allowed.
• The Jury hears/sees the evidence,
• The Jury deliberates on that evidence and testimony,
• The Jury comes to a decision,
• The Judge holds another hearing for the Pre-Sentence.
• The Judge holds the hearing for the Sentence.
• The Defendant’s Lawyers have made notes on what they believe were Reversible Errors.
• The Defendant’s Lawyers request review.
• A higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.
• The Defendant’s Lawyers request review.
• The next higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.
• The Defendant’s Lawyers request review.
• The next higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.
• The Governor Is requested to intervene.
• The Defendant’s Lawyers request another review.
• The next higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.
• Maybe the President is requested to intervene.
• The Defendant’s Lawyers request another review.
And that isn't enough for an Execution?
And, you feel that it isn’t enough of a burden on the Tax Payers?
Because the Convicted (by his/her Peers) might still be innocent?
Why not say that we should keep them alive because the Medical Profession might find a pill that will cure the sickness that makes a person a Capital Criminal?

We used to commend the Soul of the Criminal to his God. Now, it’s to the mercy of the fellow Prisoners and Guards.
We don’t even consign them to Hard Labour, because the ‘System’ corrupted and used them as Slaves. (Reference U.S. Chain Gangs.)

And, you think a simple Execution is too good for them, and best for the Tax payers.
How truly cruel you are!

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 05:45

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:42)

I don't see it.

I didn't think you would.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:42)

You will treat the prisoner (innocent maybe) with truly cruel conditions and say, "Yeah, we saved a life!"

If you think prison is cruel and execution is not, I worry about your morality. Also. it has little to do with "saving a life".

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:42)

Exposing them to STDs (a truly horrible death sentence.)

A much greater problem in the US' overcrowded, underfunded, gang-riddled, barbaric, practically-third-world prison system than it is in most other nations.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:42)

More expense for health care.

Less overall expense, though.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:42)

You will pay unnecessary taxes to support this cruel caging.

Less than you'd pay to have them executed.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 06:42)

You pay through the nose post trial, post judicial review, while their Lawyers make money in the Review process for year after year.

Less than in the case of executions.

I really don't see how you can contractict statistical facts others have posted and maintain any integrity.

[stroud458]

Why would anyone think that a person who has killed another person has the right to live? Surely if you have commited me allowed to spend the rest of your murder, you should not be allowed to spend the rest of your days in prison, in relative comfort. You should be given the death sentence, wouldn't that make the family of the victim reasured knowing that the murderer no longer has the privilege of living?

[General Goose]

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 07:42)

Why would anyone think that a person who has killed another person has the right to live? Surely if you have commited me allowed to spend the rest of your murder, you should not be allowed to spend the rest of your days in prison, in relative comfort. You should be given the death sentence, wouldn't that make the family of the victim reasured knowing that the murderer no longer has the privilege of living?

It's about what is best for the justice system as a whole, not about what is "deserved" for the criminal or what MIGHT make some families feel better.

Also, lil weasel, accidents happen. Miscarriages of justice ALWAYS happen, no matter how many safeguards. Just open the "In the Back" section of Private Eye, or look at the "Justice on Trial" section of the Guardian website. I am sure there are US equivalents too.

[_____]

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 10:42)

Why would anyone think that a person who has killed another person has the right to live? You should be given the death sentence, wouldn't that make the family of the victim reasured knowing that the murderer no longer has the privilege of living?

Because everybody has the right to live.

So what? Just because of that it is alright to kill the murderer? Does that resurrect the dead people? By your logic, if a guy cuts off one of my arms I should be allowed to cut off one of his arms.

[lil weasel]

People keep on about, "It costs more to Execute a Convicted Criminal."
WHY?
Can anyone get a breakdown of the 'costs' to execute a Convicted Criminal?
• The Last Meal?
• The Attending Physician?
• The Special (Death Watch) Guards?
• The Attending Executioner?
• The Drugs?
• The dedicated telephone line to the Governors Office?
• The Mortuary Attendants?
• Transportation of the Witness Party?

How does it add up?

[OchyGTA]

I was speaking to a friend about this and a lot of companies have stopped supplying prisons with the drugs necessary for the lethal injection as they don't wish to be associated with the death penalty. I believe he also said that the price of said drugs is quite high as a result of this.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 05:22)

People keep on about, "It costs more to Execute a Convicted Criminal." WHY? Can anyone get a breakdown of the 'costs' to execute a Convicted Criminal? • The Last Meal? • The Attending Physician? • The Special (Death Watch) Guards? • The Attending Executioner? • The Drugs? • The dedicated telephone line to the Governors Office? • The Mortuary Attendants? • Transportation of the Witness Party? How does it add up?

Links have been posted many times in this thread... it's indisputable.

[stroud458]

QUOTE (_____ @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 08:47)

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 10:42) Why would anyone think that a person who has killed another person has the right to live? You should be given the death sentence, wouldn't that make the family of the victim reasured knowing that the murderer no longer has the privilege of living? Because everybody has the right to live.

The murderer took away the victims right to live, by killing them. So shouldn't they get what they have given?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 17:23)

The murderer took away the victims right to live, by killing them. So shouldn't they get what they have given?

In a word, no. Retributive justice is an archaic, brutal and absurd concept, which acknowledges neither human fallibility nor contributing factors. If you feel happy executing the mentally ill and those who kill their abusive partners for doing something at least partially beyond their control, then I think I speak for everyone when I say I never want to see you in a political position of power.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 16:23)

QUOTE (_____ @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 08:47) QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 10:42) Why would anyone think that a person who has killed another person has the right to live? You should be given the death sentence, wouldn't that make the family of the victim reasured knowing that the murderer no longer has the privilege of living? Because everybody has the right to live. The murderer took away the victims right to live, by killing them. So shouldn't they get what they have given?

That depends, are we no better than the sort of people who murder others?

I'd like to think we are.

[Vercetti27]

what does killing someone achieve anyway? the only kind of killing that should be legal is euthansia, why do sick, twisted serial killers need to be killed exactly? are we not better than them?

[stroud458]

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 17:58)

what does killing someone achieve anyway? the only kind of killing that should be legal is euthansia, why do sick, twisted serial killers need to be killed exactly? are we not better than them?

Very true, we would in turn become the murderers. But look at it this way, if there was a death penalty, wouldn't that be a great incentive for murderers not to murder?